{"id":189,"date":"2014-09-28T15:51:06","date_gmt":"2014-09-28T22:51:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/?page_id=189"},"modified":"2015-03-14T10:07:25","modified_gmt":"2015-03-14T17:07:25","slug":"189-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/?page_id=189","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Litigation<\/span><\/h1><\/div>

Selected Cases<\/strong><\/span>. Nicholas Jollymore has litigated cases alone, with staff lawyers at Time Inc. or Newsweek, Inc., and with outside counsel. Below is a list of representative cases. \u00a0PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO INDICATION OF FUTURE RESULTS.<\/p>

  1. Trademark Infringement<\/span>.
    • Time Inc. v. Petersen Publishing<\/em><\/span>, 173 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 1999); 976 F. Supp. 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). The publisher of Teen<\/em> magazine sought to enjoin Time Inc.\u2019s use of the trademark \u201cTeen People\u201d<\/em> as the title of a new, spin-off edition of People<\/em> magazine for teenagers. After losing on summary judgment, we tired the case to a federal jury. The jury ruled in Time Inc.\u2019s favor, allowing the magazine to launch using the title \u201cTeen People.\u201d The verdict was affirmed on appeal.<\/li>
    • Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Time Inc. Home Entertainment<\/em><\/span>, CV 03-306 SVW (U.S.D. Ct., C.D. Cal. 2003). The Motion Picture Academy sued a Time Inc. book company for trademark infringement based on catalogue images of the covers of two People<\/em>- and Life<\/em>- branded books that prominently displayed the trademarks Academy Awards<\/em>, Oscars<\/em> and the Oscar<\/em> Our defense was that the books used the Academy\u2019s trademarks editorially, without any likelihood of confusion. The Academy dropped the case.<\/li><\/ul><\/li>
    • Copyright Infringement<\/span>.
      • Brandt v. Time Inc.<\/em><\/span>, No. 06 Civ. 3350 (U.S. D. Ct., S.D.N.Y. May 2006). A freelance photographer sued People<\/em> magazine for copyright infringement for publishing his photographs of Matt LeBlanc\u2019s wedding in Hawaii. People<\/em> had agreed with a photo agent before the wedding to purchase exclusive rights in the wedding photos. The photographer disputed these facts. We answered the complaint, cross-claimed against the agency, and confronted the photographer with our defenses in two mediation sessions. The lawsuit was resolved on terms that are confidential.<\/li>
      • \u00a0McCain v.<\/em> Rahal Letterman Racing and Time Inc.<\/em><\/span>, No. 07 Civ. 5729, 2007 WL 2435170 (U.S.D. Ct., S.D.N.Y 2007). People<\/em> and Sports Illustrated<\/em> magazines were sued for copyright infringement for publishing photos of racecar driver Danica Patrick, allegedly without the permission of the photographer. Our position was that other defendants were responsible for the copyright infringement. We eventually got rid of the case on technical grounds, when the judge granted a motion to transfer the case to another jurisdiction.<\/li>
      • \u00a0Redding v. Time Inc.<\/em><\/span>, No. H-06 Civ. 3292 (U.S.D. Ct., S.D.N.Y. October 2007). A photographer sued for copyright infringement for the publication in People <\/em>magazine of a photo of Anna Nicole Smith and her son Daniel under Christmas tree. We served plaintiff with an offer of judgment for a small amount, which he accepted and the case was dismissed. This tactic saved substantial legal fees.<\/li>
      • \u00a0DMCA Take Down Notices<\/em><\/span>. Jollymore set up and managed a legal team tox send Take-Down Notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to scores of infringing websites that posted People<\/em> magazine\u2019s exclusive celebrity photographs (E.g., Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt & their children, Scarlett Johansson, Jennifer Lopez, Christina Aguilera, Anna Nicole Smith, and many other exclusive baby and wedding photographs).<\/li><\/ul><\/li>
      • Libel<\/span>.
        • Dieterich v. Fraker and People Magazine<\/em><\/span>, G040027 (Cal. Appeals 4th Dist., Dec. 11, 2008). We successfully obtained a dismissal of this libel case brought by an Orange County obstetrician against People <\/em>magazine.\u00a0\u00a0 The alleged libel arose out of a People <\/em>magazine article concerning the \u201cwrongful birth\u201d of a child whose mother was treated by the doctor. The doctor challenged People\u2019s<\/em> report that he did not inform the mother of an easy test to tell if her child would be born with spinal bifida. The court ruled the doctor failed to meet his burden under the California anti-SLAPP statute. The court dismissed the case and awarded People <\/em>its attorneys fees.<\/li>
        • \u00a0Albright v. Morton<\/em><\/span>, 321 F. Supp. 2d (D. Mass. 2004). Plaintiff sued a number of publishers, including People<\/em> magazine, for publishing a photo caption that misidentified him as another man known as an outspoken homosexual. We successfully defended the case on the ground that statement that a person is gay can no longer be the basis of a libel suit.<\/li>
        • \u00a0Burnett v. People Magazine<\/em><\/span>, Sup. Ct. Los Angeles Co. (2003). Plaintiff sued People<\/em> magazine for publishing articles on his conviction of felony animal cruelty for throwing a dog into oncoming traffic in a fit of road rage. We got the case dismissed by filing a motion under the anti-SLAPP statute, and plaintiff was ordered to pay People\u2019s<\/em> attorneys fees.<\/li>
        • \u00a0Hooker <\/em> Nicole Kidman, People magazine, et al<\/em><\/span>, BC 273245 (Cal. Sup. Ct. L.A. 2002). A former California teacher sued People <\/em>magazine for libel, invasion of privacy and other torts for publishing that actress Nicole Kidman claimed the plaintiff had sent her love letters and hassled her managers. People <\/em>was reporting on Kidman\u2019s restraining order against the teacher. The judge granted our demurer, dismissing the case against People<\/em> as a fair report of a judicial proceeding.<\/li>
        • \u00a0Carradine v. People Magazine<\/em><\/span>, BC 209346 (Superior Court, Los Angeles Co. August 15, 2000). Actor David Carradine sued People<\/em> magazine for libel for publishing that Carradine had been \u201ccourt martialled out of the Army\u201d for shoplifting. We filed a motion for summary judgment on First Amendment grounds, which the judge granted, and the case was dismissed.<\/li>
        • \u00a0Suharto v. Time Inc. Asia<\/em><\/span>, (Sup. Ct. Indonesia, April 16, 2009). Former Indonesia President Suharto sued Time<\/em> magazine\u2019s Asia edition for libel for reporting that he amassed a $15 billion fortune during his 32-year rule. Working with Indonesian counsel, Jollymore and a team of other Time Inc. attorneys defended Time<\/em>, winning at trial, losing on appeal and finally winning on final appeal before the Indonesia Supreme Court. The litigation lasted ten years.<\/li>
        • \u00a0Rahim B. Tamby Chik v. Morrison<\/em><\/span>, Civ. S4-23-47-1997 (High Ct. Malaysia, K.L. 2000). Rahim, a former Malaysian minister, sued for defamation over an article in TIME<\/em> magazine reporting that he had raped a 15-year-old girl and used his political influence to avoid prosecution for statutory rape. After we had defended the claim for three years, the girl held a press conference to recant her earlier testimony that she had sex with Rahim. Our defenses depended on having the girl testify, which led us to settle the suit, albeit for far less than Rahim had demanded.<\/li>
        • \u00a0Pep <\/em> Newsweek, Inc.<\/em><\/span>, 553 F. Supp. 1000 (S.D.N.Y 1983). Jollymore worked with a team of lawyers representing Newsweek, Inc.<\/em> in defeating a $75 million libel suit brought by legendary featherweight boxer Willie Pep. A Newsweek publication had reported that Pep fixed a fight. Although Newsweek lost a summary judgment motion, it ultimately prevailed at a jury trial. The jury deliberated only 15 minutes and found in favor of Newsweek.<\/li><\/ul><\/li>
        • Invasion of Privacy<\/span>
          • L. Doe v. Maurice William Elias, et al incl. Time Inc.<\/em><\/span>, California Sup. Ct., Ventura Co. February 2003).\u00a0\u00a0 Plaintiff sued for invasion of her privacy in a People<\/em> magazine article which revealed that she was a victim of sexual molestation at age 11. We filed an anti-SLAPP motion and a demurer, leading plaintiff to offer to withdraw the complaint if we agreed not to press for attorneys fees.<\/li>
          • Jurien de la Gravi<\/em>\u00e8re<\/em> Warner Brothers France<\/em><\/span> (TIME magazine)<\/span>,<\/em> Tribune de Grande Instance (17th Chamber of Paris 2006). Working with French counsel, we opposed this invasion of privacy lawsuit based on a photo of plaintiff\u2019s son published in TIME\u2019s European edition to illustrate an article on fox hunting. After a trial, the court granted a judgment of \u20ac 2,500 (about $3,000 at the time), which was so small that we paid it and considered our defense a victory.<\/li>
          • Federico v. Time Inc.<\/em><\/span> (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 1985). The mother of a child beauty queen sued People<\/em> magazine for invasion of privacy and defamation for publishing a tongue-in-cheek article stating the child was \u201cprecious,\u201d \u201cpouty,\u201d \u201cpampered,\u201d and \u201coverly hyper,\u201d and sang in an \u201coff key voice\u201d and \u201cthrew rocks into the street.\u201d We filed a demurrer on the ground the article was protected opinion, and the judge dismissed the case.<\/li><\/ul><\/li>
          • Subpoenas<\/span>.
            • Sarkar v. John & Jane Does,<\/span> (Wayne County Circuit Court, Michigan, 2015, No. 14-013099-CZ). \u00a0<\/em>Jollymore worked with a team of ACLU lawyers to move to quash a subpoena for the identities of scientists who posted comments on www.PubPeer.com, a website that allows scientists to comment on the work of other scientists. \u00a0A Michigan cancer researcher served the subpoena in an attempt to obtain the names of other scientists who commented on his work, so he could sue them for libel. \u00a0<\/li>
            • In re County Grand Jury Subpoena,<\/em><\/span> (Ct. Comm. Pleas, Philadelphia Co., 2008). Jollymore and another Time Inc. litigator convinced the Philadelphia DA to drop the subpoena of a People<\/em> reporter who had interviewed an inmate accused of murdering a police officer. We prepared a motion to quash, which led the DA to back down and withdraw the subpoena.<\/li>
            • In re Subpoena of Lionel Bascom,<\/span><\/em>\u00a0(U.S.D. Ct., S.D.N.Y. 1980). The FBI subpoenaed a newspaper editor in Connecticut because he had information on a defendant in the Brinks armed car robbery in Nyack, N.Y. We invoked the U.S. Attorney General\u2019s guidelines governing subpoenas issued to journalists, forcing the U.S. Attorney to withdraw the subpoena.<\/li>
            • Miscellaneous Subpoenas<\/span>.<\/em> Jollymore has represented many other journalists who were either subpoenaed or threatened with subpoenas, and in most cases he has been able to negotiate a withdrawal of the subpoena on First Amendment or procedural grounds.<\/li><\/ul><\/li>
            • \u00a0Access<\/span>.
              • In re: Marriage of Spears and Federline<\/em><\/span>, (Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2007, No. BD 455662).\u00a0\u00a0 When Britney Spears moved to seal court records in her custody proceeding with Kevin Federline, we filed a motion in opposition on behalf of People<\/em> The court ordered Spears to release the custody files to People<\/em> with some redaction.<\/li>
              • Grossman <\/em> Borough of Wyomissing<\/em><\/span>,\u00a0<\/em>(Pa. Office of Open Court Records, 2009, No. AP 2009-0525). Borough police refused to give a People<\/em> magazine reporter copies of complaints made by Kate + 8<\/em> reality star Kate Gosselin against her neighbors. On behalf of People<\/em>, Jollymore successfully appealed under the Pennsylvania Right-To-Know Law, and police were ordered to turn over the files.<\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ol><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                LitigationSelected Cases. Nicholas Jollymore has litigated cases alone, with staff lawyers at Time Inc. or Newsweek, Inc., and with outside counsel. Below is a list of representative cases. \u00a0PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO INDICATION OF FUTURE RESULTS.Trademark Infringement.Time Inc. v. Petersen Publishing, 173 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 1999); 976 F. Supp. 263 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). The publisher […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/189"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=189"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/189\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":260,"href":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/189\/revisions\/260"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.jollymorelaw.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}